Advancing by consensus

JACQUES Santer was not dealt a strong hand when he was selected just over a year ago by his fellow government leaders to become European Commission president and the odds have been stacked against him ever since.

European Voice

11/1/95, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 12:46 AM CET

It has meant that he has had to play his cards cautiously and choose with care the issues on which he is prepared to make a stand. Monetary union is one – a goal which as a former finance minister he holds particularly dear. Negotiating the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) and Maastricht reform with the Commission’s status intact is another.

He is placing a new emphasis on the citizen, on making the Union both more relevant and more intelligible (hence the attention to simplifying decision-making) and on tighter financial management to rebut damaging stories about fraud and incompetence.

Internally, Santer’s leitmotif is on collegiality. Unsurprisingly, for a politician who favours consensus over confrontation, he insists that his colleagues pull in the same, not different, directions – a discipline noticeably lacking in the latter days of the reign of his predecessor, Jacques Delors.

As Santer himself has explained: “We can only advance through compromises. Not compromises at any price, but constructive ones. I’ve always succeeded with them.”These priorities help explain why Santer has delivered two high-profile reprimands in recent weeks.

The first involved senior Commission official Bernard Connolly, over the unauthorised publication of a trenchant critique of a single currency which appeared to undermine one of the Union’s cardinal creeds. The second led to a humiliating climb-down by Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and a decision not to publish her Brussels diaries. Those who have read the text say that it dwells at length on uninteresting subjects like the weather and domestic incidents and that even personal comments on colleagues and politicians are largely qualified. But the fact that she passed judgement publicly on Commissioners who will sit round the same table as her for the next four years has badly dented the collegiate atmosphere Santer is trying to create.

But, however distasteful spilling blood might be, Santer had already demonstrated a certain inner steel to his colleagues and did so at their very first group meeting in the neo-Gothic Luxembourg château of Senningen exactly a year ago. Faced with too many Commissioners and not enough serious portfolios, he rejected a campaign by the UK’s senior Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan to include responsibility for Central and Eastern Europe in his trade empire. Brittan briefly considered resignation, but swallowed his pride and later became one of Santer’s two vice-presidents.

The omens had not been good three months earlier when Santer took over one of the Union’s most high-profile posts. He had been no one’s first choice and was only drafted in as a compromise candidate when stalemate emerged over the rival claims of his two Benelux Christian Democrat premiers, Jean-Luc Dehaene and Ruud Lubbers.

Santer himself was personally not keen to leave his native Luxembourg where he had been Prime Minister since 1984 and a certain amount of emotion crept into his farewell speeches as he prepared to move home 200 kilometres northwards. This 58-year-old son of a policeman was aware that the change of political stage would also mean a change in his precious family life and missing opportunities to relax occasionally with friends in a Luxembourg café over a few games of belotte, an old French form of poker.

Santer was also preparing to take on the post of Commission president as the political pendulum was beginning to gather speed away from further integration and back towards national considerations, with a number of governments preparing to use the forthcoming IGC to reconsider the whole balance of power between the EU institutions.

But it is not just governments which are forcing the Commission to rethink its role. The European Parliament is also a source of pressure. More than any of his predecessors, Santer must judge how his own and his colleagues’ behaviour will be viewed by MEPs still getting to grips with their new Maastricht powers. Santer himself had a far from easy ride when Euro MPs approved his nomination in July 1994 and had to concede the principle of public hearings to the evident discomfort of some Commissioners.

Santer deploys two favourite tactics to achieve his goals: wider use of consultative Green and White Papers and the creation of special sub-committees of Commissioners. There are now almost half a dozen of these groups looking at foreign policy, monetary union and equal opportunities. The advantage of such groups is that they can iron out potential problems before they reach the full Commission. The disadvantage is that they can be an extra drain on a Commissioner’s time, attendance can be irregular and decision-making may be sacrificed for more mundane tasks.

Says one senior official: “If the groups have a short meeting with a clear agenda so that decisions are taken that is fine. But sometimes they can turn into glorified Chef de Cabinet meetings with Commissioners having to draft texts. That is counter-productive.”Despite the committee system, Santer does not believe in small coteries. He has no special confidant among the Commissioners. His Cabinet advisors include an impressively wide range of nationalities, under the coordination of the highly respected former Luxembourg diplomat Jim Cloos.

“I would know if they were operating a kitchen cabinet and I can assure you they do not,” says one senior official who keeps track of visitors to the 12th floor offices of Santer and his advisors.

Santer may be less charismatic and visionary, and pay less attention to detail than his predecessor, but his more pragmatic style may better suit the times. He has virtually banned use of the word ‘federal’ because of the confusion it sows and his speeches invariably hit the right buttons, speaking in a plain language about issues individuals can understand.

He is also not afraid to enter the lion’s den. He deliberately chose to make three high-profile speeches in that most Euro-sceptical member state, the UK, this summer. They were designed not to deliver ultimata or to read the riot act, but to spell out what the Union is trying to do and explain the potential benefits.

Santer’s approach is not universally admired within the Commission and a price has had to be paid for his style.

“The basic tactic appears to be to ensure nothing deflects from the target of monetary union and to ensure the Commission comes through the IGC unscathed. But it can be dangerous keeping your head down,” complains one senior official.

Another gestures in a vain effort to catch the air in front of him, complaining at the absence of firm policies which officials and Commissioners can debate.

Others fear the lack of stronger leadership will encourage other EU institutions to flex their muscles during the IGC. They point to the way French President Jacques Chirac hardly allowed Santer to speak at the post-Cannes European summit conference in June. To be fair, this said more about Chirac’s exuberance than any reticence on Santer’s part. The previous evening he had behaved in similar manner to the recently-appointed, and distinctly uneasy, new EU former Yugoslavia peace envoy Carl Bildt.

And what of the months ahead? As the then Luxembourg Prime Minister, Santer chaired each of the last two IGCs which paved the way for the Single European Act and Maastricht. That experience may well stand him in good stead if he is called on from the other side of the fence to conjure up formula to reconcile conflicting views and achieve the art of the possible.

“I don’t set much store by dreams and visions, just concrete results,” he says of himself and as politicians and commentators alternate between the terms ‘European Union’ and ‘European Community’, Santer recognises the reality of both and the one he prefers.

“A community denotes feelings of generosity, affection, solidarity. A union is more political, more diplomatic, more formal. I prefer to live in a community,” he says.